OpenPublica

Accountability starts with access.

© 2026 · Filed for the public record

Use casesAboutAPIPrivacyTermsLinkedIn
Home/Alexandria, Virginia/Public Meetings
OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Alexandria BAR Public Hearing: October 8, 2026

Public Meetings — Thursday, October 8, 2026
BodyAlexandria, Virginia
SessionPublic Meetings
DateThursday, October 8, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 3:30:20

Original source
Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it

Speaker numbers apply only to this recording.

Speaker 1

0:00

Yes.

Speaker 2

0:00

Yes.

Speaker 1

0:01

Okay.

0:02

This meeting is called to order.

0:04

We will proceed tonight with the uh applications and other agenda items in the order indicated on the docket.

0:09

We don't have any copies of the docket anymore, do we?

Unassigned speaker

0:12

We

Speaker 3

0:12

do have

Speaker 1

0:14

a copy.

0:14

Do we have to say the docket?

0:15

We're moving to a paper-free system.

0:17

So it's always better to look at the city's website in advance and print it out if you want to dock it.

Speaker 4

0:25

If you want to know this sitting around on the room, you can

Speaker 1

0:28

Google it too.

0:29

Great.

0:30

If you're an applicant, please be sure to read the staff report for your case.

0:34

If you don't have it, you can scan it there and download it.

0:37

We're gonna proceed in the following order of business.

0:40

The applicant or applicant's representative may present the proposal or just be available for questions.

0:46

And the board encourages everybody to be thorough but concise.

0:49

The public will have an opportunity to speak on each application.

0:53

Members of the public will be given three minutes.

0:56

And if you're representing a civic organization, you'll have five minutes.

1:05

So just make sure you fill out a speaker form and hand it in to Ms.

1:08

Weiss Gerber in advance.

1:11

After public comment is complete, the board will give the applicant an opportunity to respond to any public comments.

1:21

Following this, we'll close the public hearing aspect and we will enter into deliberations where we'll have discussions with the applicant.

1:30

After deliberation, the board may take the following actions for each application.

1:34

We can vote on a motion to issue, continually issue, or deny a certificate of appropriation on request from an applicant.

1:41

We can vote on a motion to defer.

1:43

We can vote to continue the next case to the next available public hearing, or we can uh proceed to the next docket item without taking any action.

1:50

If the board takes no action at the next regularly scheduled meeting, the certificate of appropriateness is automatically issued.

1:57

A couple of comments on voting.

1:59

Motions passed by a simple majority vote.

2:02

A tie vote results in no action on the motion.

2:05

It doesn't mean that the application fails, it means the motion fails.

2:08

If the board votes to deny an application, a similar application will not be considered for a period of one year.

2:14

The board occasionally takes up matters uh um other than applications for certificates of appropriateness.

2:21

We are doing that tonight, and we'll give the public an opportunity to speak on those matters as well.

2:25

Same deal, you'll just have to fill out a speaker form.

2:28

Any appeals to the board will um from the board can go to the city council.

2:33

And if you'd like to appeal any board decision, you just have to make the appeal with the city within 14 days, and that's what the zoning ordinance says.

2:40

So uh with all of that, Mr.

2:42

Conki, are we moving on to the minutes?

2:45

All right.

2:45

Um so

Unassigned speaker

2:47

the

Speaker 1

2:47

first thing we have to consider are the minutes um from the September 16th Board of Architectural Reviewed Public Hearing.

2:54

Does anyone on the board have any comments or suggested amendments to the minutes from the September 16th hearing?

3:01

Do any members of the public wish to suggest any amendments to the minutes from the September 16th hearing?

3:08

Seeing none, can we get a motion to adopt the minutes?

3:11

Is there a second?

Speaker 5

3:12

Sorry.

Unassigned speaker

3:13

You

Speaker 1

3:14

got that?

3:15

All those in favor say aye.

3:17

Aye.

3:17

Any opposed?

3:19

All right, that the minutes are adopted.

3:22

Let's move on to new business.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Planning And Zoning████████████████████████████████████36%
Historic Preservation████████████████16%
Procedural███████████11%
Parks and Recreation██████████10%
Parks And Recreation███████7%
Public Engagement██████6%
Community Engagement████4%
Engineering And Infrastructure████4%
Zoning███3%
Summary of Proceedings

City of Alexandria Board of Architectural Review Public Hearing – October 8, 2026

The Board of Architectural Review (BAR) held a public hearing on certificates of appropriateness, one withdrawal, waterfront flood-mitigation improvements, and a proposed zoning text amendment briefing. The agenda and minutes date the meeting as Wednesday, October 7, 2026, but the supplied metadata date is October 8, 2026; this summary uses the supplied date. The agenda lists the venue as Charles Houston Recreation Center, 901 Wythe Street, while the minutes header lists Del Pepper Community Resource Center, 4850 Mark Center Drive. The hearing was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and adjourned at 10:31 p.m.

Minutes

  • The BAR approved the September 16, 2026 public hearing minutes as submitted on a 7-0 vote.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • On 601 Wythe Street, Steve Malone urged the board to uphold the guidance that unpainted masonry should remain unpainted. He argued that staining, even when diluted, removes texture and is treated as removal of an exterior feature under the zoning ordinance.
  • On 415 North Alfred Street, Wade Neil said the refinements improved the design but the repeated details still felt palatial and institutional. He recommended matching window lintel and sill materials, more traditional and varied windows, better massing transition into the adjacent house, differentiated garage colors, brick sidewalks conforming to city standards, and code-compliant ADU/garage egress.
  • Jessica Laphur said the project would overpower the block and that the two nearly identical right-hand units created an institutional feel. She asked the developer to spend more time blending with the street context.
  • Dr. Jeannie Cameron Brooker, who said she lives directly across from the site, thanked the developer for adding variety but asked that the two identical units also be differentiated.
  • On the waterfront applications, Stephen Wintermeyer said he liked many upgrades but opposed retaining the gravel parking lot, which he said earlier plans called to replace with green space. He also asked about utility poles, street closures, and accessibility concerns for nearby residents.
  • Melissa Bakeman, speaking as an architect and designer, said the design used too many materials, counting 11 different surface materials in Waterfront Park and 9 at Point Lumley, plus multiple stone step and bench styles. She argued the design felt scattered, raised concerns about removing mature trees, questioned corten steel, asphalt, and large granite blocks, and said the waterfront commission had concerns about the parking lot becoming permanent.
  • Steve Malone agreed with those material concerns and advocated for Alexandria’s traditional street cross-section of herringbone brick sidewalks, buff brick roadway, and granite curbs. He also urged maximum tree preservation and less concrete.

Unfinished Business: BAR2025-00549 – 601 Wythe Street

  • This request sought approval to stain the existing brick at 601 Wythe Street as part of an office-to-residential conversion. Staff noted the stain was a condition of a prior 2021 BAR approval and recommended approval after reviewing mock-ups and color samples.
  • The applicant’s architect said the stain would reduce the heavy commercial mass of the 1980s building and create a more residential character. Board members debated whether the upper color was too close to the existing brick, whether the rendering matched the actual mock-up, and whether staining was appropriate on non-historic brick.
  • The board approved the application as amended on a 4-3 vote, with Vice Chair Zandian, Mr. Adams, and Ms. del Ninno opposed. The approved motion required the applicant to work with staff to achieve as close as possible the color contrast, tone, and appearance shown in the rendering while preserving the natural texture of the brick and mortar.

New Business: BAR2026-00338 – 807 South Royal Street

  • The applicant requested partial demolition and encapsulation of a rear/west building. The applicant described adding a first-floor living room and kitchen and a second-floor master suite.
  • Staff recommended approval as submitted because the encapsulated portion would not be visible from a public right-of-way. The board approved the application 7-0.

Withdrawal: BAR2023-00124 – 621 King Street

  • The applicant had initially requested a deferral but instead asked to withdraw the request for alterations to previously approved plans. The board accepted the withdrawal 7-0.

New Business: BAR2026-00384 – 415 North Alfred Street

  • The applicant sought approval for new construction of five townhomes with garages and second-story ADUs in the Parker Gray historic district.
  • Staff recommended approval with conditions, including work with staff on the mansard roofline, adjacent dormer, window configurations, and front entry doors. The applicant presented revisions that lowered parapets, sloped roof-access enclosures, varied rooflines, added a mansard element, varied brick colors, and wrapped brick around the rear of the townhomes.
  • Board and public discussion focused on overall massing, the amount of ground-floor glass, window frame and muntin patterns, front door design, brick and stone details, sidewalk materials, and the need for more individual identity among the five units.
  • The board approved the application as amended on a 6-1 vote, with Mr. Adams opposed. Conditions included incorporating a mansard roof or similar transition on the right unit, narrowing the ground-floor windows and spandrel details, raising the water table slightly, using a more traditional front door with a transom, refining dormer and mansard materials, maintaining brick sidewalks if city standards allow, varying window muntin patterns, and changing the center unit to a two-window configuration.

Waterfront Applications: BAR2026-00356 and BAR2026-00357

  • The City of Alexandria requested alterations and partial demolition/encapsulation at 2 King Street, 1 King Street, 0 Prince Street, 1A Prince Street, and 3 Duke Street for the waterfront flood mitigation and park improvement project.
  • Staff recommended approval with conditions related to the shade structure, retaining wall and seating materials, and the King Street parklet surface. The applicant said the pump station element had been removed from the project and that the public parking lot would be retained as an interim use.
  • The proposal covered Point Lumley, Waterfront Park, and Lower King Street, including a relocated shipbuilder statue, canal stone seating, historic shoreline paving bands, new shade structures, stormwater improvements, and pedestrianization of Prince Street.
  • Board and public comments raised concerns about too many materials, the large amount of concrete on Shipbuilders Walk, removal of mature trees, the retained parking lot, accessibility, the central trench drain on King Street, and the need for more shade.
  • The board approved both applications as amended on a 6-1 vote, with Ms. Miller opposed. The approval included staff recommendations and conditions to reduce concrete, especially on Shipbuilders Walk; use warmer and more brick-based paving materials where feasible; preserve open space in the baby park area; add pedestrian-scaled lighting; and allow flexibility for access and grade changes. The shade structure was not finally approved and was directed to return for a subsequent BAR review in November.

Information Session on Proposed Zoning Text Amendments

  • The BAR heard a presentation on proposed zoning text amendments. No vote was taken because the item was informational.
  • Staff outlined four proposed changes: a new parking curb-cut review process; conversion of informal concept review into a formal two-stage certificate of appropriateness process; extension of certificate of appropriateness validity from 12 months to 36 months; and related cleanup provisions.
  • Staff estimated that OHAD has roughly 4,400 properties, 147 alleys and interior courts, 3,350 curb cuts, 887 actual driveways, and about 1,408 properties without a current curb cut or alley access. The proposed curb-cut process would first review feasibility through transportation staff, then historic appropriateness through preservation staff and, on appeal, the BAR.
  • At the end of the session, the board elected Ms. Robinson to the BAR Design Guidelines Committee on a 7-0 vote.

Administrative Approvals

  • The docket listed approximately 40 administrative approvals for roof, window, door, fence, signage, and related replacements throughout Alexandria. No separate discussion or recorded vote on these administrative items appears in the transcript; the minutes list them without individual action.

Key Outcomes

  • Adopted the September 16, 2026 minutes 7-0.
  • Approved BAR2025-00549 as amended 4-3 for 601 Wythe Street.
  • Approved BAR2026-00338 7-0 for 807 South Royal Street.
  • Accepted withdrawal of BAR2023-00124 7-0 for 621 King Street.
  • Approved BAR2026-00384 as amended 6-1 for 415 North Alfred Street, with Mr. Adams opposed.
  • Approved BAR2026-00356 and BAR2026-00357 as amended 6-1 for the waterfront projects, with Ms. Miller opposed; the shade structure will return for further review.
  • Elected Ms. Robinson to the BAR Design Guidelines Committee 7-0.
  • Adjourned at 10:31 p.m.

Meeting Transcript

Yes. Yes. Okay. This meeting is called to order. We will proceed tonight with the uh applications and other agenda items in the order indicated on the docket. We don't have any copies of the docket anymore, do we? We do have a copy. Do we have to say the docket? We're moving to a paper-free system. So it's always better to look at the city's website in advance and print it out if you want to dock it. If you want to know this sitting around on the room, you can Google it too. Great. If you're an applicant, please be sure to read the staff report for your case. If you don't have it, you can scan it there and download it. We're gonna proceed in the following order of business. The applicant or applicant's representative may present the proposal or just be available for questions. And the board encourages everybody to be thorough but concise. The public will have an opportunity to speak on each application. Members of the public will be given three minutes. And if you're representing a civic organization, you'll have five minutes. So just make sure you fill out a speaker form and hand it in to Ms. Weiss Gerber in advance. After public comment is complete, the board will give the applicant an opportunity to respond to any public comments. Following this, we'll close the public hearing aspect and we will enter into deliberations where we'll have discussions with the applicant. After deliberation, the board may take the following actions for each application. We can vote on a motion to issue, continually issue, or deny a certificate of appropriation on request from an applicant. We can vote on a motion to defer. We can vote to continue the next case to the next available public hearing, or we can uh proceed to the next docket item without taking any action. If the board takes no action at the next regularly scheduled meeting, the certificate of appropriateness is automatically issued. A couple of comments on voting. Motions passed by a simple majority vote. A tie vote results in no action on the motion. It doesn't mean that the application fails, it means the motion fails. If the board votes to deny an application, a similar application will not be considered for a period of one year. The board occasionally takes up matters uh um other than applications for certificates of appropriateness. We are doing that tonight, and we'll give the public an opportunity to speak on those matters as well. Same deal, you'll just have to fill out a speaker form. Any appeals to the board will um from the board can go to the city council. And if you'd like to appeal any board decision, you just have to make the appeal with the city within 14 days, and that's what the zoning ordinance says. So uh with all of that, Mr. Conki, are we moving on to the minutes? All right. Um so the first thing we have to consider are the minutes um from the September 16th Board of Architectural Reviewed Public Hearing. Does anyone on the board have any comments or suggested amendments to the minutes from the September 16th hearing? Do any members of the public wish to suggest any amendments to the minutes from the September 16th hearing?

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com